surviving urban renewal program: case study of a ...repo.uum.edu.my/3179/1/s15.pdfpolitical...

Political Managements and Policies in Malaysia

277

Surviving Urban Renewal Program: Case Study of a Traditional Urban Village in Kuala Lumpur

Sharifah Mariam Alhabshi

Abstract

� e study undertakes an analysis of the development trajectory and

outcomes of a 110 years Malay village located within Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia called Kampung Baru. More specifi cally the study seeks to account

for the development paths of this village brought about by urbanization

and planning. � e village is characterized by relative tranquility and

neat layout of traditional Malay houses, has relatively been retarded in

its development with poor roads and sanitation even though the rest of

metropolitan of Kuala Lumpur is enjoying a boom in economic growth

and prosperity. � e methodology that has been employed for this study

relied on empirical fi eld work that utilized both participant observation

and a questionnaire survey. � e research found political, historical and

institutional factors has delayed planning and renewal of the (35,000

people and 153.35 km2) area. � e consequence of the delay has been

detrimental to landowners but advantages to non-owners and migrants

who have been taking advantage of the area cheap rent and strategic

location. � e situation will soon change, however, for the city authority

can no longer tolerate increasing criticism of the area disgracing image in

the midst booming Kuala Lumpur city. Renewal is therefore certain but

the fate of the village traditional image is uncertain.

Keywords: renewal, culture, Malay, village

Seminar on National Resilience

278

INTRODUCTION

A village is a community of people or human settlement relatively

clustered and smaller than a town. It is a term is often used to denote

communities that are small and subsistence based, local, rural and

fundamentally traditional particularly, tied to some socio-cultural

heritage. In light of the nature of the village under review, has witnessed

some form of developmental transitions, this paper rather refer a village

to a community that is still closely tied to its cultural and traditional

values however, situated and coexisting within a metropolitan area.

! e portrayal of a village in this paper is coherently in tandem with Qi

Changging et al. (2007 28) description of an urban village which they

referred to as “rural enclaves inside large cities or in their peri-urban areas

characterized by high building densities, poor building quality, irregular

streets and open sewage”. Physically these are areas surrounded and

overshadowed by skyscrapers, transportation infrastructures, and other

modern urban constructions.

In such areas, rental is relatively cheap and hence, attracts the poor and

transient who come from the rural areas to make a living in the city. ! e

deplorable living standard often breeds social problems such as crime,

drug addiction, alcoholism and prostitution. Such areas are not regulated

by the city authorities particularly due to opposition from the local

inhabitants who do not want any infringement to their simple traditional

ways of life and most importantly, because such areas do not generate

income, less attention is paid to them by city councils. In addition, most

of these areas are under facilitated yet overcrowded and buildings are

haphazardly arranged, roads are narrow making it diffi cult for vehicles

to pass through. Interesting though, despite the unsightly environment,

many of these villages have designated areas for cultural activities and

some have special shopping and market streets which attracts a wide

spectrum of people from within and outside the village areas.


279

With few exceptions, these descriptions of a village from the Chinese

context given by Qi Changging et al. (2007) is aptly similar to features

inherent of Kampung Baru a case study of this paper. ! e diff erence with

Kampung Baru to the Chinese village could be seen in the nature of

the environment and population type. Kampung Baru are lively villages

(relatively noisy not from bustling of vehicles but children playing and

hawkers fi ghting for the attention of shoppers by shouting out their

bargains) characterised by hardworking family oriented households. Like

in China, buildings or houses in this village is haphazardly arranged, old

and without proper maintenance. However, unlike China, they are bright,

paved with fruit trees and garden crops and there is a strong communal

relationship amongst inhabitants in this area which simultaneously

enhances safety of the areas from likely social vices particularly crime.

It can be adduced that Kampung Baru has some similar charactersitics

with urban villages in some Western countries with reference to the

descriptions provided by the Institute of Civil Engineers, United

Kingdom (ICE UK) (2009) and Homs (2007). According to ICE UK:

An urban village is a concept of a settlement which is small

enough to create a community in the truest sense of the word

- a group of people who support each other, but big enough

to maintain a reasonable cross section of facilities. Walking

determines the size - a 10 minute walk from one side to the

other. To provide a suffi ciently large population to maintain

a range of community facilities all within a walkable distance

means the density of development must be high. An urban

village is densely developed in the centre, with town squares and

key community focal points, density eases away from the centre,

and the boundary of the village is marked by greenspace

(http://www.ice.org.uk/rtfpdf/BS-Urban%20Villages.pdf ).


280

In the same vein, Homs (2007) characterized an urban village as an area

that off ers various types of residence as well as a variety of infrastructures

and functions, and provides the avenue for social interconnectedness and

fi rm interaction between residents. " e urban village is basically designed

towards social construction which ultimately provides a community with

the benefi ts of modernization and at the same time strives hard to reduce

the erosion of local character and distinctiveness. In other words, urban

villages are characterized by a comprehensive blend of local and modern

communal structures.

Kampung Baru somewhat shares similar characteristics with urban

villages present in some countries of the East and West. But the most

distinguishing features rests on the loose plan and simple social setting

that can be found in the two villages, which allow easy social and economic

interaction among neighbors in the community. " e next section provides

a vivid picture of Kampung Baru as it explores their backgrounds as well

as their varying transitions of change.

THE CASE AREA

" e study undertakes an analysis of the development trajectory and

outcomes of a 110 years Malay village located within Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia. It has 35,000 population and an area measuring 153.35 km2.

Specifi cally this study seeks to account for the development paths of this

village brought about by urbanization and planning. Kampung Baru is

characterized by relative tranquility and neat layout of traditional Malay

villages, has relatively been retarded in its development with poor roads

and sanitation even though the rest of the capital city and Malaysia was

enjoying a boom in economic growth and prosperity.

In examining the case, the paper looks at variables including historical,

institutional, political and socio-cultural factors. " e historical narrative

is straightforward off ering an evolutionary background to the current

state of aff airs. " e political institutions that will be examined pertain


281

to diff erent governing structures and processes of decision making. In

particular, the role of leadership shall be examined. How planning was

organized and carried out will also be looked at.

" e methodology that has been employed relied on empirical fi eld work

that utilized both participant observation and a questionnaire survey.

Historical data have been assembled by library research and interviews.

Owing to the explorative nature of this study, the qualitative data analysis

technique has been employed to extract and analyze data with the intent

to raise distinct features from the village. " is is done by exploring

relationships and patterns across categories where the study develops

matrices to highlight the link between process and outcomes.

" e paper is organized into two main parts. Part I examines the institutional

and cultural factors at play in forging the eff ects that were experienced

in the village. In part II, researcher presents the questionnaire survey

method and results. In the fi nal part, researcher evaluate the meaning

of the preceding two parts as researcher search for explanations for the

results in urban planning of the Kampung Baru. Researcher begins by

giving some general background information of Kampung Baru. After

this is done in Part I, researcher look at the social and political dynamics

that underpin their renewal programs by connecting it to development

drivers namely; political power and leadership. Here researcher also

throws light to the varying renewal issues inherent in both villages simply

as a way of providing direct comparisons of both areas. In particular,

researcher discusses on future trends for the sustainability of the village

as cultural artifacts in quest of identity and dignity. Researcher also off ers

recommendations for brighter prospects.

Renewal History and Issues

" e growth of Kampung Baru is inextricably linked to the growth of

Kuala Lumpur. In the 1800’s, Kuala Lumpur was only a mining area

however, its image gradually changed as a result of the huge increase


282

in the population which is accrued to massive infl ux of immigrants

particularly from China, who were brought in by the British to work

on tin mines. ! e status of Kuala Lumpur was further upgraded in 1880

when it became the capital for the state of Selangor (the present capital

of the State of Selangor is Klang). Kuala Lumpur continue to prosper

and in 1896, it was designated the capital of the Federated Malay States.

At that time traders (namely from India) and other immigrants have

comfortably settled in, and the Chinese were found to have concentrated

the south of Kuala Lumpur, now called Chinatown, the Indians (mostly

chettiar) chose the area around the Klang River, now called Merdeka

Square and Jalan Masjid India, while the Malays chose the north-side,

now called Jalan Tun Perak.

! e congregation of Malays in Kampung Baru is obviously not by default

but as a result of a premeditated colonial design. When the community

was formed in 1897, it was referred to as Malay Agricultural Settlement

(MAS) measuring 101.02 hectares (equivalent to 874 parcels). With

the establishment of the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur in 1974,

Kampung Baru area was expanded by 61.93 hectares or 153.04 acre (see

Table 1). In this paper, the latter addition to Kampung Baru is referred

to as non-MAS area. ! us, as at 1974, the total area of Kampung Baru

was 162.95 hectares. Presently, the total area has been reduced to 153.35

hectares after an illegal takeover of about 9.61 hectares by the City Hall

Kuala Lumpur (CHKL) for construction of a by-pass from Jalan Tuanku

Abdul Rahman to Jalan Raja Abdullah.


283

Table 1 Layout of Kampung Baru

Non-MAS Area MAS Area

Chow Kit Kampung Periok

Dang Wangi Kampung Masjid

Sultan Ismail Kampung Atas A

Kampung Sungai Baru Kampung Atas B

Flat PKNS Kampung Hujung Pasir

Kampung Paya

Kampung Indah

Total land area: 61.93 hectare (153.04 acre)

Total land area: 91.41 hectare (225.89 acre)

Source: City Hall Kuala Lumpur, 2008

Up to the 1930s, Kampung Baru was purely a residential village settlement

with houses built of wood and supported by stilt, with a small verandah,

big living room (usually with no more than three bedrooms) surrounded

by garden crops (such as chili, banana, tapioca, etc.) and widespread

rearing of poultry (Hands 1941). Houses are spaciously built on land area

of approximately land 60”x33’. ! is pattern could still be seen in some

parts of Kampung Baru. Basic utilities such as fl ush toilet and individual

water supply were not available until after the WWII. ! is was however

not peculiar to Kampung Baru, the situation was similar to many parts

of Kuala Lumpur. By 1960s basics utilities like water and electricity were

accessed by all houses and other basic social and economic infrastructures

such as roads, schools and mosque were upgraded.

Upgrading was continuous but ad-hoc, nevertheless, benefi ted certain

groups such as traders but also has disturbed the natural setting of the

area. For example, the straightening of the Klang River which runs

alongside Kampung Baru in 1960s contributed to the susceptibility of

Kampung Baru as a fl ood prone area. Its physical image worsens after

the construction of walls along the river side which separated Kampung

Baru physically from Jalan Ampang. ! en came the KLCC (KL City

Centre and the Petronas Twin Towers) and the Light Rail Transit in


284

the late 1990s, with their varying constructions that totally alienated

Kampung Baru from the city centre. With no Master plan, the physical

structures of Kampung Baru are haphazard and degraded. ! e unplanned

development slowly pushed original villagers out and were replaced by

transient and squatters.

By early 2000, the surrounding structures have completely engulfed

Kampung Baru. Complete takeover could not be made because the Rules

for the Occupation and Management of the Malay Settlement, Federated

Malay States No.40, (page 239 of 18 March 1910 and Amended by

Gazette Notifi cation No. 950 of 22 February, 1935) are still valid.

Rules and Management in Renewal

As mentioned earlier, Kampung Baru is divided into two parts - MAS

and non-MAS lands. ! is designation has to be made clear because

despite being under the jurisdiction of CHKL, its land administration

diff ers. ! is land issue was unfortunately not considered and amended

during the inclusion of MAS area into the Federal Territory of Kuala

Lumpur in 1974. ! us, in terms of land management the non-MAS

land is guided by the National land Code (NLC). But the MAS-land is

managed by both the NLC and the Notifi cation No. 21 in the Selangor

Government Gazette of 12 January 1900 (under Section 6 of the 1897

Selangor Land Enactment).

! e National Land Code (NLC) of 1965 is the highest law in Peninsular

Malaysia on matters of land administration (though it is not applicable

in Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territory of Labuan). Among

other provisions mentioned in the NLC, there are two aspects that are

directly related to Kampung Baru. For instance, the provision states that

“otherwise expressly provided, nothing in the Act shall aff ect 11 items, two

of these are on Malay reserve land and law law in force on the ground of

sultanate” (Ministry of Federal Territories http://www.kwp.gov.my/

cmsen/2ndLevel.asp?catid=6&parentid=0)


285

In a similar manner, the 1897 Selangor Land Enactment states that the

Settlement (MAS area) “shall be controlled by a Board of Management” and

elaborated that the Board was to consist of four persons to be appointed

from time-to-time by the Resident (currently is the mayor of Kuala

Lumpur). ! is set-up is still a present practice in the MAS area. ! e

Board was given the power to frame by-laws for the eff ectual control and

management of the MAS area. ! e Board was also given the power to

allocate land to the Malays subject to express and implied conditions. ! is

is, “no allotment shall exceed half an acre [or about 21, 780 sq ft], more or

less, in extent, and provided that no more than one allotment shall be occupied

by any person without the express permission of the Resident communicated in

writing to the Board.” As such, the Board, based on the power vested on it

has continues to manage the allotment of land to this date. In addition,

the Rules also state that in order not to strain the occupant fi nancially,

the allotment was given free (except an assessment not exceeding $2 per

annum towards “building erected, or to collect a tithe of the produce of each

allotment) subject only to compliance with the conditions imposed by the

by-laws framed under the Rules (Hands 1941).

After 15 August 1946 (the end of Japanese Occupation in the then

Malaya), the Board’s fi nancial support declined drastically which

subsequently led to the operation of MAS area to be on ad-hoc basis. In

May 2005, the Board was revived with the establishment of a new Board

of Management. ! e new Board, although was also fi nancially weak but

operates effi ciently on voluntary and charity basis.

Ownership of land on the MAS area before 1964 was not based on

individual title or allotment. Records of ownership (which include

personal and lot details) were noted in a register kept by the Board of

Management (which is still kept intact till today in the Board offi ce). ! is

set-up was in accordance with MAS ruling which specifi ed that “every

entry shall be held, as against all other claimants, to be proof of authorized

occupation and no entry and no alteration in the register shall be deemed to


286

be valid unless approval thereof be recorded in the minutes of a meeting of the

Board and be certifi ed by the initials, against such entry or alternation as the

case may be, of the Secretary and one other member of the Board” (Hands 1941

p.23). In that year (1964), with political interferences by Datuk Harun

Idris, the then Chief Minister of Selangor, convinced the Government

of Selangor, i.e. the Sultan, to grant individual qualifi ed title (QT) to all

occupants (MAS Newsletter 2009).

In short Kampung Baru a mere 153.35 hectares of land is tied to two

administrations mandated by two diff erent laws. " e paragraph that

follows highlighted some of the issues constraining Kampung Baru’s

renewal programs. " e discussion focuses on the duplication of local

administrative power plus political interference which intertwine with

the system of government. Secondly the state of land law restraining sale

to non-Malays which in a way has pushed away investors and developers

from Kampung Baru.

Administrative and Politics

FTKL is the oldest and most notable of the three federal territories in

Malaysia (Putrajaya and Labuan are the other two territories) and it is

administered by the Ministry of Federal Territories headed by a minister.

" e local administration of FTKL is carried out by the Kuala Lumpur

City Hall or CHKL. " e CHKL is responsible for public health and

sanitation, waste removal and management, town planning, environmental

protection and building control, social and economic development and

general maintenance functions of urban infrastructure. Executive power

lies with the mayor in the city hall, who is appointed for three years by

the Federal Territories Minister. " e practice of appointing a mayor has

been in place ever since the local government elections were suspended

in 1970 (Shaw 2009).

Another layer of administrators that infl uence FTKL comes from the

system of government in Malaysia. Malaysia has been practicing a multi-


287

party system since the fi rst direct election of the Federal Legislative

Council of Malaya in 1955 (on the fi rst-past-the-post basis). ! e ruling

party then was the Alliance Party coalition and subsequently from 1973

onwards is the National Front. ! e FTKL as a case is represented in

the Lower House of Representatives by eleven Members of Parliament

(MPs), who are elected for fi ve-year terms. Prior to 2008 general election,

all 11 constituencies in FTKL, was under the National Front seat. After

the 2008 election, 10 constituencies were taken by the opposition party

which also constituted Kampung Baru [the electoral area is called

Setiawangsa which was won by the Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS)]. ! is

further complicated the stakes of area as its spoke’s person now sits on

the opposition side of Parliament which is controlled by the ruling party

or National Front and hence, lacks the complete political wherewithal to

push the course of Kampung Baru.

Land Law and Administration

! e MAS settlement was created under Section 6 of the 1897 Selangor

Land Enactment Act. In line with the Rules (Selangor gazette 1900

Notifi cation no. 21) of the land administration, no individual title was

to be issued to the occupants. Rather they were issued with permits that

were not transferable. In 1950, by-laws (MAS Rules 1951) followed by

amendment in 1994 (Cap 138, Sec 246 (4) was introduced. ! e new

ruling government gave land ownership title to all occupants (Hands

1941). ! e area involved in the title change exercise include: 835

residential lots, 4 empty lots, 1 lot for a mosque, and 5 lots for a surau. As

at the close of 2009, there were 8 residential lots, 5 surau lots and 4 open

space lots ownership titles that are still pending for approval. ! is means

ownership of these remaining lots still rests with the Government of

Selangor (MAS Newsletter 2009). In 1977 the exercise was continued by

the Federal Territories Land and Minerals Director’s Offi ce (PTGKL)

to this date.


288

At least one aspect of the MAS land issue was solved through designating

exact lots to all occupants. However, the avenue for government to alienate

land in the area remained unchanged as land could only be transferred

to a Malay or Corporation with Malay interest (Parliament Sitting 23

September 2004). In light of this restriction, most land transactions

were between individuals thus, circumventing the role of government.

Furthermore, according to Ismail et al (2006) these transactions were

mostly in form of bequeaths rather than market sale (see Tables 2 and

3). In fact, the transactions recorded between individual to company

and company to individual were among the Malay property owners in

Kampung Baru rather than outsiders.

Table 2 Land Transactions in Kampung Baru

Year of Transaction

Individual-to-

Individual

Individual-to-Compay

Company-to-

Individual

Company-to-Company

1996 0 1 0 0

1997 0 2 0 0

1998 1 1 0 0

1999 1 1 0 0

2000 8 1 2 1

2001 2 1 0 1

2002 5 7 0 0

2003 17 6 1 0

2004 16 6 0 5

2005 14 0 2 2

2006 5 0 1 2

Source: CHKL, Property and Valuation Department, 2007


289

Table 3 Property Transcation in Kampung Baru

Year of Transaction

Total Transaction 1996-2006

Market Transaction

Bequeath/Inherit

1996 1 1 0

1997 2 1 1

1998 2 0 2

1999 2 0 2

2000 12 5 7

2001 4 3 1

2002 12 5 7

2003 24 9 15

2004 27 13 14

2005 18 3 15

2006 8 4 4

Source: CHKL, Property and Valuation Department, 2006

With reference to the fi gures recorded in the tables above, it is evident

that the by-laws are still eff ective specifi cally in the MAS area. Table 4

presents a comparison between the management laws of 1897 and the

current management profi le.


290

Table 4 Comparison of Management Law in MAS Area from 1897 to

the Present

Rule 1897 Management Current Management

3 “the settlement shall be under the management and control of a Board which shall consist of a President, Vice-President, Honorary Secretary and eight other members who shall be appointed by the Menteri Besar from time to time...”

! e settlement is managed by CHKL together with the Board (Malay Argicultural Settlement) which consist of a President which is the Mayor of CHKL, Vice-President which is the deputy mayor of CHKL, honorary secretary represented by individual from the MAS community and eight members also represented from the MAS community.

4 “! e Board shall have powers to frame by-laws not inconsistent with these Rules for the eff ectual control and management...”

No longer ineff ective

5 “! e Board may authorize any approved Malay applicant irrespective of his vocation to occupy an allotment on such terms and conditions as it may consider fi t and proper…”


6 “It shall be the duty of the benefi ciary or benefi ciaries to inform the Board within six months of the death of any registered occupant of the fact of such death…”


7 “! e Board shall keep a Register in which shall be entered the names of approved applicants, deletions and substitutions of occupants, together with all the necessary particulars relating to them and to the allotments which they are authorized to occupy…”

Is still practice


291

9 No registered occupant, shall extend, alter or rebuild his dwelling house without fi rst submitting a plan for the approval of the Board

ineff ective

10 Without the express permission of the Board, no occupant shall:(a) Permit any person, other than Malay, in his house or other part of his allotment.(b) Let, or permit his house to be sub-let

Is still practice


Sources: Hands, 1941; MAS Newsletter; MAS Management Board of Directors 2009,

pers. Comm., 7 October.

Renewal Agenda Past to Present

Over the years urbanization brought more outsiders (immigrants

and transient groups) whom increased the density and congestion of

Kampung Baru. " e rapid increase also aff ected the ability of CHKL to

provide the much needed and effi cient services for the area. For example,

some houses were extended up to the edge of an already narrow roadway,

blocking free passage of garbage trucks and other road users. Similarly,

the MAS Management Board which is also tasked with providing

services was under-funded to off er any worthy assistance. In light of these

shortfalls in planning and provision of basic infrastructural facilities, the

development control in Kampung Baru was weak and negligent and thus,

accelerated the rapid deterioration of the major facets of development in

the entire area.

At diff erent times, the deteriorating conditions in the area have led the

villages to agitate and clamor for change however; the desire for change

does not imply giving the mandate totally to CHKL, which has had

records of suspicion and mistrust by the villagers. For example, in 1975

CHKL was allocated RM5 million under the ambit of Bumiputra

Credit Scheme to assist homeowners to rebuild their homes (MAS

Newsletter 2009). " e scheme was terminated prematurely (in 1980) due


292

to ineff ective service delivery coupled with corruption and abuse of funds

by the so-called recommended developer by CHKL. A second attempt

was mooted in 1985; it also failed for the same reason. In 2000 a new

renewal policy was formulated (included in Kuala Lumpur Structure

Plan 2020) and in 2008, a detailed concept for Kampung Baru was drawn

(presented in Kuala Lumpur Draft Plan, 2020, Volume 4). In spite of all

these, development fallacies in the area are still farfetched and critics

over CHKL’s capabilities however have not receded. " e next paragraph

highlights CHKL’s proposal for Kampung Baru, followed by comments

of this proposal.

Kampung Baru Renewal Plan, 2008

" e Kampung Baru Renewal Plan, 2008 proposed four redevelopment

alternatives for Kampung Baru namely: Trend, Selective Development,

Integrated Renewal and Comprehensive Renewal (see Table 5). " e

integrated renewal plan was considered as the most cost eff ective and

sustainable plan in comparison to the other three. " e plan proposed only

40% of land to be alienated or 63.62 hectares. Of this total 48.32 hectares

will be taken from MAS lands and 15.29 hectares from non-MAS lands.

" e plan will produced 6.4 million m2 of business fl oor space that will

include commercial and cultural centre, with tourist attractions and

15,452 mixed residential units. " e population of the area is projected to

increase to 85,490 at daytime and 61,808 at nighttime by 2020. Overall

the project is estimated to consume about RM18.14 million.

" ere are many criticisms on the proposal. One of the most serious

was from an NGO contradicted the plan from the perspective of the

National Physical Plan (NPP). According to the body NPP proposed

the population of Kuala Lumpur to be reduced to 25 persons per hectare

by 2020. " is proposal was in line with the idea of promoting better

living environment for Kuala Lumpur residents by way of increasing

green areas and recreational areas. But why does the CHKL plan

proposed quadrupling persons per hectare to 95, as such; the Plan will be


293

accompanied with its unintended consequences of pulling more people,

structures, pollution and congestion into Kuala Lumpur - an idea that

contradicted the NPP (! e Star, 26 May 2008, p. 1).

Planning Mechanism

With regard to planning of the MAS and non MAS lands the CHKL

proposed two approaches. ! e fi rst alternative involves the preserving

land ownership and land retrieval. CHKL proposed among MAS land

owners they could develop their lots individually but has to follow zoning

outline. An owner also could develop their lands based on joint-venture,

where costs of development to be shared. Transfer of Development Right

is another alternative. An owner could exchange his zoning privileges

from areas with low population needs to areas of high population needs.

! e objective of this alternative is to allow for the preservation of open

spaces and historic landmarks, while giving urban areas a chance to

expand and experience continued growth.

Among non-MAS land owners CHKL proposed development be carried

out by Real Estate Development Trust (REIT). REIT’s role is to manage

groups of income-producing properties and to distribute income from

these properties as dividends. A REIT company is required to have at

least 30% bumiputra equity and shall not have more than 49% of foreign

share. ! e Company shareholders have to be approved by Security

Commission who acts as security holder for investment asset as well as

guiding investors’ interests through controlling administrative asset by a

management company. And the Company should has a minimum value

of RM100 million before it could be launched and following investment

value should not be less than RM25 million. Finally, a REIT company

could off er unit for sale to public investors through sale, restricted sale,

subscription sale, bonus, and other means by approval of the Security

Commission and Joint development of land.


294

e second alternative involves land alienation. CHKL is somewhat

cautious in dictating renewal policies under this alternative, especially

in areas involving MAS lands. In ensuring that the planning pattern for

Kampung Baru went as scheduled they were hoping that the by-laws

mandated on MAS lands is ignored. is however could be diffi cult to

come by. In accordance with Ainul Jariah et al:

In order to go international, one must do away with quaint law.

What was feasible 50 years ago may not be practical today…For

example, there is this old rule (Section 6, Land Enactment 1897)

says those who own properties in Kampung Baru…not supposed

to rent out their buildings to outsiders and non-Malays…

Just how many Malays can aff ord to rent here anyway?... is

kampong must be opened to the non-Malays for it to develop

( e Star Monday 26 May 2008, p. 1).

e opinion of the Chairman is in line with many research fi ndings that

advocate socio-economic integration as a prerequisite for development

( e Star Monday 26 May, 2008). e MAS lands have lower land value

than non-MAS land in the open market. is is because there is no

demand for MAS lands due its land restrictions coupled with the failure

to liberalize and open up the area for non-Malays to invest as well as,

limited capability of the Malays, affi liate corporations and individuals

to embark on large scale investment on MAS land. is set back is

further compounded by most banks that champion and favor socio-

economic integration. It is discernible that the indulgence enjoyed by

the Malays stands out as a fundamental impediment to their growth and

development.

FINDINGS FROM FIELD SURVEY

e paragraph below discusses the fi eld fi ndings from 320 questionnaires

that were returned of 500 that were distributed. Many unassuming answers

were captured that could not be known if a survey is not conducted. In


295

addition, some answers were also confi rming writings of some authors of

the area state of aff airs.

Demographic and Socio-Economic Background

A total of 320 respondents were sampled in Kampung Baru, out of which

234 (73.2%) were residents of the area, while the remaining were visitors

to the area. Among the residents of Kampung Baru (234) 47.4% of

respondents were original residents of the area, that is they were born and

raised in Kampung Baru, while the majority of 49.7% were newcomers,

out of which 44.4% chose to live in Kampung Baru because of its strategic

location and Malay identity, whereas the remaining 8.3% have no special

reservations for settling in the area.

In term of age highest percentage were from age range 20-29 (25%)

years old, followed by 30-39 years (20%) and 40-49 years old (above

18%). Age corresponded with the level of education and most of them

have attended compulsory primary schools, and 49% have completed

secondary education, Table 5. Respondents that are not educated or no

formal education have good reasoning. For instance, the older age group

(60 and older) revealed that war (WWII the Communist Insurgency of

the late 1940s to 1960) and social background were the main reasons

behind their failure to complete the primary education and the attainment

of formal education. However despite lack of formal education, these

respondents were knowledgeable and had a good account of history. It is

important to state that their insights and anecdotes helped this research

to confi rm the coherence and consistency of literature written on the

areas.


296

Table 5 Respondents Educational Breakdown

Education LevelKg. Baru

234 Respondents

Primary 6.8

Secondary 49.7

Diploma 13.5

Degree 5.3

Other 24.7

Total 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2009*In Kg. Baru Secondary includes MCE, LCE, STPM & certifi cate

Other includes, informal school, no schooling

Corresponding to the level of education, job opening is limited to the

stall level business particularly in the spheres of food and clothing. As

shown in Table 6, those who are not inclined to the stall level buinesses

received employment from the city, generally in technical and service

industries.

Table 6 Respondents Job Levels

Job StatusKg. Baru

% of 234 Respondents

Mid-level managerial 11.27

Junior-level offi cer 6.01

Teacher 0.75

Sales/Clerical 13.53

Small business/Hawker 22.56

Blue-collar/laborer 6.76

Pensioner 3.76

Housewife/student 8.27

Looking for work 27.07

Total 100.0

Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2009


297

Job-type matches household income for both areas. ! e highest income

reported was from those holding managerial position and those operating

businesses. ! ose that reported low income were blue-collar workers,

such as laborers, clerk and restaurant/stall helper (see Table 7).

Table 7 Respondents Income Level

HH IncomeKg. Baru

234 Respondents

less than 1000 5.3

1000-1999 18.1

2000-2999 23.3

3000-3999 6.8

4000-4999 0.8

5000 and more 4.5

P & C 0.8

student 3.8

Visitors 3.8

No fi xed income 33.1

Total 100


Kampung Baru is densely populated however, household size of the area

is relatively small (see Table 8). ! is research captured more than 40%

of one person household. ! e second highest is the 3 and 4 persons

household. ! e one person household refers to the old/retired group, all

of who still occupying properties of their descendants. Another group

is the renters (usually single living in fl ats and apartments) who take

advantage of Kampong Baru’s strategic location.


298

Table 8 Residents Households by Size

HH size( person)Kg. Baru

234 Respondents

1 45.3

2 10.9

3 11.7

4 18.8

5 4.7

6 3.1

7 1.6

live with parents 3.9

Total 100


In term of house quality unlike other areas in Kuala Lumpur houses in

Kampung Baru range from a shack-like abode to high-cost apartments.

As such, houses that meet the middle and high income family needs are

limited. In light of this limitation, Kampung Baru tends to attract more

singles and migrants provided they are willing to forgo luxury living

environment for cost of transportation and distance.

Kampung Baru’s complicated land status is also not helping to pull

high-income residents. ! is study found out that of the total land and

homeowners (111 respondents), 34.5% have single ownership over the

property, 58.6% have two and more persons sharing the ownership of a

title. ! e multiplication of name to a single property corresponds to the

age of the property and 27.9% reported the property to be more than 30

years old; 9.1% more than 60 years old and 19.5% more than a century

old. ! e complication on land title is one of the reasons (as indicated by

17.3% of respondents) that restrict sale of properties as well as upgrading

of properties (23%). In fact, as explained by a property developer, there is

a piece of land in Kampung Baru that has 90 owners and nine of them

have passed away (Rohana Mustaff a 2009b).


299

Table 9 Kampung Baru Status of Ownership Title

Ownership Title 111 Respondents (owner)

Individual/Single Ownership 34.5

2 Persons Sharing ownership 28.7

3 Persons Sharing Ownership 11.5



Not sure 6.9

Total 100


Issue of multiple ownerships was also captured by Ismail et al (2006) who

found from the 51 undeveloped lots surveyed, that 81% had multiple-

ownership. Furthermore, 88.1% of these lots were inherited, implying

unless the owners are earning good income, the ability to upgrade/

rebuild the houses could be minimal. In addition, in their study about

70% of lot owners’ earnings were less than RM1500 and more than 66%

were over 50 years old. ! is state of aff airs spells negative credibility to

obtain fi nancial assistance unless partnering with developer as proposed

by CHKL.

Community Belongingness and CHKL Plan

Based on this research survey, 93% of residents that were approached

admitted that they have no intention of leaving Kampung Baru. ! e

main reason is for the deep rooted love for the community specifi cally

with reference to the distinct Malay-Muslim culture and its colorful

history. For instance, some respondents gave a full recount of their lives

in Kampung Baru during the Japanese occupation, 1941-1946. Few of

them still recalled their roles in WWII. ! ese are precious memories that

many wanted to treasure and pass on to their children and grandchildren.

! e current CHKL plan however did not pick-up these points; rather

it simply plans to commoditize the story of Kampung Baru in light of

tourist’s demand.


300

In a nutshell, CHKL is overly engrossed in transforming the area into

a heavily commercialized area and in the process; it tends to ignore the

resident’s vision for Kampung Baru, a strategy that has been observed

from the onset of the planning process of Kampung Baru. ! e approach

and mindset of CHKL towards the renewal of Kampung Baru seems

very diffi cult to change owing to its preconceived notion of transforming

the area into a world class metropolitan city thus, neglecting the cultural

identity and heritage that ought to be preserved. In light of the present

reformation of major cities of the world characterized by glitz and

fl amboyant life styles, Helena Norberg-Hodeg (1996 p. 18) asserts that:

Much of the world’s diversity has already been destroyed.

Economic globalization accelerates this process. Wherever you

go in today’s global village’ you’ll fi nd multi-lane highways,

concrete cities, and cultural landscape featuring grey business

suits, fast food chains, Hollywood fi lms, and cellular phones.

In every corner of the planet, Barbie and Madonna are familiar

icons, and the Marlboro Man and Rambo defi ne the male ideal.

From Cleveland to Cairo to Caracas, Baywatch is entertainment

and CNN is news.

In the course of a planning exercise, it is customary to understand why

and for what a plan is designed. ! e paragraphs below capture remarks by

both residents of Kampung Baru with regards to conditions in their living

environment, specifi cally their level of satisfaction with the government

particularly, the bureaucrats - planners and administrators.

Resident’s Perspectives - Kampong Baru

In accordance with Helena Norberg-Hodeg (1996), irrespective of what

we see around us, the tendency towards nationalizing cultural identity and

ethnicity is common among development planners, especially when they

get engulfed with the short-term agenda of politicians and businesses.

! is is the premise of Kampung Baru’s renewal issue. ! e actors involved


301

are the CHKL planners, politicians, the MAS Board of Management,

and the residents of Kampung Baru. Selective voices of these actors are

gathered and presented in this section to show the diversity and intricacy

of the issue at hand.

! e chairman of Kampung Baru for renewal programs, also the former

Member of Parliament of the area argues for comprehensive renewal

when he asserts that:

Unlike KLCC, which is surrounded by iconic multi-million

ringgit developments, this kampong [Kampung Baru] remains

unblemished even after 100 years. In order for it to go international,

it must do away with quaint rules. What was feasible 50 years ago

may not be practical today …For example, old rule [refereeing

to the 1899 enactment] that says properties in Kampung Baru

(Malay Reserve area) cannot be rent out rent out to outsiders

namely non-Malays is no longer practical…. [because] not many

Malays can aff ord to rent [i.e. after renewal] here [in Kampung

Baru] anyway…! is kampung must be opened to the non-

Malays for it to develop (! e Star Monday 26 May 2008).

After the publication of this statement residents became more suspicious

of the chairman.

Similarly, according to the Permanent Secretary of MAS Board; “We

welcome development; In fact we have long been informed [20 years ago]

about this [renewal project] but at the same time are waiting for a fruitful

meeting” (S Suradi 2009, pers. Comm., 16 Oct.).

Furthermore, the Secretary said they [MAS Board of Management]

were also not invited to participate in Kampung Baru renewal agenda. At

the same time their grievances on fair compensation were not seriously

attended to. He relates this point to the issue of trust. According to


302

the Secretary, people are afraid of opening up their doors to developers

because they are victims and susceptible to fraudsters. He cited incidents

where a corporate fi gure cajoled landowners into mortgaging 44 plots

of land on the pretext of development. Instead, these lands were used

as collateral for the man’s project elsewhere that later failed. Because of

this bitter experience he suggested development to take the step-by-step

approach: “Develop one area fi rst. If it is a success, then make it a model for

other areas rather than developing all at one go that could fail and wipe out the

settlement’s legacy (S Suradi 2009, pers. Comm., 16 Oct).

Another group of actors, investors and developers revolve their

arguments on matter of compensation. Investors think landowners

are being unrealistic when comparing their land to that of the Golden

Triangle properties (valued at RM2000 psf ). In the words of a property

management manager: “Land values appreciate due to pressures of

development. Compared with the hectic pace of development in the Golden

Triangle, there was hardly any development in Kampung Baru. Further,

non-Malays are prohibited from owning land in Kampung Baru which in

the Golden Triangle does not have such restriction” (R Abdullah 2009, pers.

Comm., 27 Oct). He quoted the real estate of Kampung Baru to range

from RM200 to RM400 on average which is 5 to 10 times lower than its

adjacent-adjoining neighbor.

Indeed the tug-of-war over compensation has eaten up 20 years of

Kampung Baru’s renewal time. As at May 2010, developers have refused

to compensate residents based on city-centre land value. While residents’

decisions against renewal plans remained unchanged.

Resident’s Idea of Renewal

Public participation in renewal decision is essential in achieving lasting

and sustainable renewal programs and projects. It should no longer be

the case that citizens act only to elect and then, whatever the outcome,

are governed without giving opportunities to interact with their


303

representatives. Such is the case in Kampung Baru where the stakeholders

or the community were not professionally consulted rather were treated

as non-essential group. In light of this gap, respondents were not able to

describe the objective(s) and the contents of CHKL’s draft plan when

asked. As such, this research observed that residents’ seem to be narrowing

their ideas to familiar parts of their immediate neighborhood. A clear

consideration was given on income versus distance to work, school and

other daily activities. Like the MAS Board Permanent Secretary, the

community was also into incremental approach. Calling for upgrading

of commercial buildings and houses and where necessary to introduce

new structures with proper layout, a recreational area for children and

youths, a community center that off er complete amenities and facilities

for social and religious ceremonies. Examples of area they like to model

after are established new towns like Shah Alam, Putra Jaya, Damansara

Utama, Kota Damansara and Puchong. Another unanimous request was

the preservation of the authenticity of Malay heritage as well as reviving

the activity of Sunday Market or “Pasar Minggu” – a market established

during the colonial era to display and market community produce.

Interestingly, all the points proposed by respondents and more, are

mentioned in the CHKL proposed alternative (Alternative 3, summary

of the development proposal is depicted in Table 19). " e information

gap was caused by several factors.

First, CHKL was too engrossed in settling land title issues and hence,

puts on hold, its planning ideas as against publicizing it. " e research

found the rise of this problem when CHKL gave more priority to

elected offi cials (whom are generally not respected by the Kampung Baru

community) to dictate Kampung Baru’s agenda over the stakeholders. In

the process, CHKL’s attention was deviated to economic growth instead

of stakeholders’ aff airs. As part of the fi ndings of this research, 99% of

respondents and all local leaders suggested discussions and negotiations

with CHKL. On occasion where there are many names to a title, they


304

suggested that CHKL buy-over the land and compensate the parties/

individuals involved fairly (based on market price) equally and amicably,

and it should deal the issues of Malay rights and privileges with great

restraint. Although this point was mentioned in the proposed plan, at the

same time, CHKL was also in purporting for non-Malays ownership of

properties in Kampung Baru. ! ird point was over the word “Malay”. ! e

original residents prefer not to be assimilated with immigrants Malay. ! e

community considers immigrants Malays as invaders of their communal

space and business opportunities. ! us in term of compensation exercise,

the immigrants are considered unfi t to receive equal compensation as

Malay or pioneer residents (Malaysia Pribumi).

! is point was also mentioned in CHKL’s proposed plan, except it used

the term old and new land/property owners referring to pioneer Malays

and immigrants Malays.

A simple decision on building approval, for example, could take years to

resolve if it happens it is not in agreement with the interest of certain

groups. Indeed as part of the process of redeveloping Kuala Lumpur

in general and Kampung Baru in particular, CHKL has to undergo

continuous process of legitimation and sanction to satisfy various parties.

! is proposition concurs with the words of Allison (1978 p.184):

! e decisions and actions of governments are essentially intra-national

political outcomes: outcomes in the sense that what happens is not

chosen as a solution to a problem but rather results from compromise,

coalition, competition, and confusion among government offi cials who

sees diff erent faces of an issue.

DISCUSSIONS

Good governance has a lot to do with how the state, and most

importantly how the political process is organized. Good governance

usually considers monitoring and recording what is going on, taking steps

ensuring compliance with agreed policies, and provides corrective action


305

in cases where the rules have been ignored or misconstrued. In the case

of Kampung Baru, the planning authority is seen as an instrument that

enriches selected groups or crony. ! is is not usually a recipe for effi cient

governance. Malaysia’s political process seems especially prone to special

interest (most of all, from big fi nance and developers), which does not

particularly bode well for effi cient government either. As mentioned in

the earlier section of this paper, when political leaders were among those

implicated in squandering people’s land for self fulfi llment, dismisses

peoples’ trust on other leader’s good intentions. Losing Kampung Baru

to an opposition party is an indication of peoples’ lost of trust and interest

in the ruling party’s promises. ! is is another reason that explains why

Kampung Baru’s renewal idea drags on.

Laws, rules and regulations that govern land matters usually get amended

through time because land usage changes with the changing needs of

the community. ! is has not been happening in Kampung Baru because

CHKL does not have enough land to implement its proposed plan and

new laws and regulations could not be crafted and legislated as fast as

the changing landscape of Kuala Lumpur. ! ere are occasions where the

government failed to investigate/examine the existence and implication

of old law on new development programs, like in Kampung Baru. ! e

Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur restructuring team overlooked to

dissolve the 1897 MAS Enactment during which the inclusion of MAS

area was part of FTKL (Parliament Sitting September 23, 2004). ! e eff ect

of this oversight resulted in fuzziness over roles among implementing

agencies. However because Kampung Baru is located in a prime locality,

CHKL could not ignore and allow it to continue deteriorating. ! ey had

to intervene in every way possible.

However the CHKL was not the only group that desires change for

Kampung Baru. ! e residents were also tired of living in a dilapidated

environment. But compensation and land rights have become a

building block. ! e community unanimously wanted fair compensation,


306

comparable to the value of land in the city centre (golden triangle), that

is, RM1500 to RM2000 per ft2 as against RM300 per ft2. ! is means

for every title (21,780 ft2or half an acre, the exact allocation per original

title) each owner will get about RM33 million or about USD 8 million

(based on RM1500 per ft2). Of course this deal will not come easy as it

is said and CHKL is still chugging along with its proposed plan.

! e community saw CHKL’s concern of retaining Malay image as

dubious when justifying the possibility of allowing leasing of properties

to non-Malays. One of it was a pawah system. ! is is a sharing system

where the real estate developer gets seven parts while three parts goes to

the landowner. Another suspicion rests with the idea of setting-up of a

special body under Parliamentary legislation to safeguard Malay rights.

! e Body is to be run by Malays, it will hold and manage the assets that are

to be leased to others including non-Malays. ! e body also has the power

to acquire unsold bumiputra quota that could then be leased to non-

Malays. Cunning period of lease was conveniently left in the statement

of “lease to others”, implying that non-Malays could lease forever. ! is

goes without saying, the process will promote gradual disappearance of

Malay identity in Kampung Baru. ! e plan drew suspicion at the outset.

! is places another deadlock in redeveloping Kampung Baru.

Central to the planning process of a community, is the highly indispensable

need to pull considerable information about the area’s cultural and socio-

economic background. With such information, the history, values and

prospects of a community can be harnessed to suit its proposed plan.

Planning for Kampung Baru was grandiose particularly with planners

making no assessment of the community’s present socio-economic

profi le and future impact. ! is study found that (based on the sample)

50% of the respondents were living below the national average income.

! is implies preference of these residents were towards low profi le living.

Drastic change as proposed in alternative 3 will introduce negative

impact on families and neighborhood and long-term economic eff ect on

small-scale businesses.


307

Retaining sense of community is essential in planning an area. According

to Syamsuri Suradi (2009) the Honorary Secretary of MAS Management

Board, Kampung Baru is unlike other centers in Kuala Lumpur. “It has a

soul and character of its own.” He meant the environment and the people

that make Kampung Baru are special in the sense that they gave meaning

to the area and having distinct character i.e. having individuality or

oneness. In the words of Lynch (1974 p. 10) a highly imageable city:

would invite the eye and ear to greater participation. ! e

sensuous grasp upon such surroundings would not merely be

simplifi ed, but also extended and deepened. Such a city would

be one that could be apprehended over time as a pattern of high

continuity with many distinctive parts clearly interconnected.

! e perceptive and familiar observer could absorb new sensuous

impact without disruption of his basic image, and each new

impact would touch upon many previous elements. He could be

well oriented, and could move easily. He would be highly aware

of the environment.

In a nutshell, the Kampung Baru community would like to retain the

area’s original environment, like the City of Venice in Europe and San

Francisco and Boston in the United States, as examples. In line with

Kevin Lynch planners that build these great cities were able to “see the

hidden forms in the vast sprawl of our cities” (p. 12).

THE FUTURE

Kuala Lumpur envisions itself to be a world class city by year 2020. ! is

means it will assume the status of world class cities like New York, Paris

and London. London for example is a global centre for politics, fi nance,

education, entertainment, media, fashion, arts and culture. It is also a

major tourist destination for both domestic and overseas visitors. In

becoming a world class city like London, it is important to take account

of many factors that contributed to its remarkable development and


308

persistent successes. Apart from its legendary history, it has eff ective and

effi cient infrastructural network. For example, the London underground

administered by Transport of London is the most extensive underground

railway network in the world. Also, the London Heathrow Airport is the

world’s busiest airport attending to numerous travelers from all corners

of the world and its airspace is the busiest of any urban centre in the

world. # is implies that for Kuala Lumpur to be a world class city, besides

speeding-up development and renewal, it must ensure that development

and renewal is aligned with the world class vision, expectations and

sustainability. In line with the governments’ target for the reformation

of Kuala Lumpur into a world class city by the year 2020, many parts of

Kuala Lumpur have witnessed massive improvement, but there are areas

that are still awaiting to be revitalized and developed and one of these

areas is Kampung Baru. # e CHKL has proposed 16 renewal precincts

for Kampung Baru. As of May 2010, except for remedial upgrading,

CHKL’s proposed plan has not taken eff ect.

# ere are several impediments that continue to haunt and delay the

adoption and implementation of the plan. # e most diffi cult to solve

is the MAS land alienation and compensation stalemate between

CHKL and MAS landowners. While for non-MAS areas, including the

broader Kuala Lumpur was challenged on various issues, the thorniest

was contradiction with the National Physical Plan on the question of

sustainability.

Having Kuala Lumpur as the heart of Malaysia, of which Kampung

Baru is an appendage, resolving all the complex issues that has stalled

development in the area seems imperative and the most eff ective way to

reach an agreement will be by way of high-level political intervention. In

fact, the survey of this study as well as other studies (see for example Shaw,

2009) found the residents of Kampung Baru particularly the land owners,

to be extremely frustrated and harassed by the slum-like environment that

is predisposed to diseases and varying social threats like crime and unrest.


309

With reasonable terms, many are willing to collaborate with CHKL for

better living environment and improved economic status. Similar view was

given by MAS Management Board. ! e Board could no longer manage

the MAS area eff ectively, especially with the changing demographic

character of MAS residents and changing landscape of MAS area. In

addition, the Board is fi nancially weak in comparison to CHKL which

has legal jurisdiction over the city’s management. ! is research holds the

conviction that in the course of time, the landscape of Kampung Baru

will change, however, due to discrepancies and contradictions inherent

in CHKL’s proposed plan, renewal will not distinctively follow CHKL’s

proposed plan and instead, the plan will be adopted haphazardly in line

with the government’s fi nancial capability.

CONCLUSIONS

Planning for people is diffi cult, because unlike things people can think

and are subject to uncontrollable change. ! e intensity of the diffi culty

may however vary by political system and government. In the contexts

of Kampung Baru policy derailment resulting from institutional faction

was obvious. ! ere are offi cials of CHKL and MAS Management Board

squabbling over planning role. ! ere are constituency leaders (Members

of Parliament), namely from the National Front who voted for renewal

while the current constitutional leader (a member of the opposition

party) voted for no or incremental development. Another group is the

NGOs, their opinions of development ranges from subjective matter like

culture and values to tangible factor like compensation. A policy decision

could not be reached because these groups were attacking the issue from

diff erent ends.

Organization that carries out programs requires the cooperation

of segment of the public or the whole public. If the requirement of

cooperation is not forthcoming, the organization will fail to accomplish

its objectives and the stake holders stand out to bear the brunt of failure.

In addition, planning cannot be enforced against unreceptive public.


310

Rejection has its reason. Before introducing the renewal plans, planners

did not really ask these questions: what does a community want? and

how can access be gained to solve the problem? (if any), and predict

consequences of their actions? For example, suggesting relocating aff ected

households to a new faraway community was not only insensible but

a dumb suggestion. All these points were not eff ectively discussed and

clearly rationalized from within the government agencies, instead was

put to action with haste.

Land law is another hurdle to Kampung Baru’s development. Some parts

of Malaysia land law are still tied to the archaic British law. In addition,

its land is also governed by the general structure of the early Malay states

before 1500s and the political history and land tenure system that was

practiced then. In the case of Kampung Baru, it was reserved for poorer

classes of town inhabiting Malays in 1900 by the Sultan of Selangor and

was called the Malay Agriculture Settlement with power delegated to

a committee to run the area – the MAS Management Board. In 1974,

when the MAS area was drawn into the FTKL boundary, the authority

overlooks to amend the law binding upon the MAS area. CHKL tried

to salvage the blunder through the assistance of the land offi ce, court,

and the National Land Code. # e action has created tension between

MAS Management Board and CHKL. Despite the deteriorating nature

of Kampung Baru, no resolution has been reached.

CHKL continues planning program for the area, taking the stance that

they know what is best for the area. But sustainable development cannot

take place through force, but through gradual and spontaneous proactive

eff orts of all actors who equally and democratically participate and share

their ideas, visions, and responsibilities to steer and implement their

community or village development.

In sum, due to political, historical and institutional reasons, planning

and renewal of Kampung Baru has been incremental and has sidelined


311

large areas from the development process especially the MAS area which

still remains untouched. Practically, this is the rationale behind the

uneven development in the area as the slum-like image is evident amidst

luxurious structures. ! e penalty of non-planning have benefi ted some

and has brought devastating eff ects on others. Let’s take the penalty for

non-planning fi rst. ! e CHKL as the local authority has been seen as an

ineffi cient agency. Outsiders and even Kampung Baru’s residents blamed

the CHKL for everything from uncollected rubbish, narrow roads,

crime, and increased illegal immigrants and so on. ! e government

particularly, the federal government is being shamed for allowing the

Kuala Lumpur Malays to live in an appalling environment. Some land

owners like the second generation owners (who are already in their 70s),

are losing the opportunity of living in a well-planned neighborhood. ! e

third generation owners, contrary to their aspirations, had to sharing

their neighborhood with intruders, like illegal immigrants, lowly paid

laborers and the unemployed which in turn cultivate the setting for

addicts and thugs. Land owners’ bitterness for being neglected has been

used by selected politicians and individuals as bullet to frame the ruling

government as ill-equipped. Such attack is benefi cial to the opposition

and also a high cost to the legitimacy and credibility of the ruling party.

Other gainers are immigrants who thrive on appalling areas and transient

residents who ride on Kampung Baru’s cheap rental estate to live and

have easy accessibility to the city’s job market.

! e fate of Kampung Baru is yet to be seen, however, this study believes

that Kampung Baru, in light of CHKL’s planning idea will be like

other new centers in Malaysia. ! e uniqueness of the area could not be

sustained because appreciation of what it was will be blinded by money-

making real estate.


312

References

Ainul Jaria Maidin, Sharifah Zubaidah Syed Abdul Kader, Bashiran

Begum Haji Mobarak Ali, Nor Asiah Mohamad, Azlinor

Sufi an, Ratna Azah Rosli & Fauziah Mod Nor 2008, Principles

of Malaysian Land Law, Lexis Nexis, Kuala Lumpur.

Bavani, M & Yip Yoke Teng 2008, (May 26), ‘Kampung Baru folk

ready for change’ ! e Star, viewed February, 2009, http://www.

malaysianbar.org.my/index2.php?option=com_content&do_

pdf=1&id=16187

Changging, Q, Kreibich, V, & Baumgart, S 2007, ‘Informal elements in

Urban Growth Regulation in China – Urban Villages in Ningbo’

ASIEN, 103, pp. 23-44.

City Hall Kuala Lumpur 2008, Kampung Bharu. Vol. 4 of Draft Kuala

Lumpur 2020 City Plan, City Hall Kuala Lumpur, Kuala

Lumpur.

City Hall Kuala Lumpur 2007, Property Valuation Report, City Hall

Property Valuation Department, Kuala Lumpur.

City Hall Kuala Lumpur 2006, Property Valuation Report, City Hall

Property Valuation Department, Kuala Lumpur.

Hands, J 1941, ! e History of ! e Malay Agricultural Settlement Kuala

Lumpur: From January 1899 to October 1941. Compilation of

Minute Books.

Homs, C 2007, ‘Localism and the city: the example of urban villages’ ! e

International Journal, Vol. 3, no. 1. pp. 19-27.

Institute of Civil Engineers Briefi ng Urban Villages Forum, viewed

September 2009, <http://www.ice.org.uk/rtfpdf/BS-Urban%20

Villages.pdf>

Ismail Omar, Hajjah Asiah Othman, Djurjani Wardata, Abd Prijono

& Nugroho Djojomartono 2006, Strengthening the Structure

of Development Land Market in Kampong Baru, Kuala

Lumpur –Transaction Cost of Institutional Economics Analysis

Perspective Associate, UTM, Johor Bharu.


313

Lynch, K 1974, ! e Image of the City, MIT: Massachusetts.

Malay Agricultural Settlement 2009, Management Board Newsletter,

Kampung Baharu, Kuala Lumpur.

Ministry of Federal Territories ‘Land Administration’, viewed

October 2009, <http://www.kwp.gov.my/cmsen/2ndLevel.

asp?catid=6&parentid=0>

Norberg-Hodeg, H 1996, ‘Break-up the monoculture’, Nation Magazine,

July 1996, 15-22. of Inclusive Democracy, Vol.3, no. 1.

Parliamentary Session 1, 2004 (September), Oral Question and Answer

Session Meeting 3, Bil. 42, 23.

Rohana Mustaff a, 2009a, ‘Kampung Baru Development: Is It ‘So Far’

Away?’ BERNAMA, January 31, Featurers section, viewed July,

2008, http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsfeatures.

php?id=386895

Rohana Mustaff a, 2009b. ‘Kampung Baru: Tale of Prince and Pauper’

BERNAMA, viewed July 2008, http://www.bernama.com/

bernama/v5/newsfeatures.php?id=386430

Rules and By-Laws Malay Agricultural Settlement, 1951, Kampung

Baharu Kuala Lumpur, State of Selangor No. 50 and 66.

Selangor Government Notifi cation 50/18.1.51

Selangor Government Notifi cation 480/24.6/54

Selangor Government Notifi cation 66/18.1.51

Shaw, R 2009, Sustainable Eco-Development of Kampong Baharu: A

Policy Perspective. Kyoto University and Malay Agricultural

Settlement.

surviving urban renewal program: case study of a ...repo.uum.edu.my/3179/1/s15.pdfpolitical...

Documents